This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A detention officer observed the Defendant enter a cell with other inmates and overheard him discussing drugs. The officer saw the Defendant hand an item to another inmate, who then passed it to a third inmate. The third inmate was apprehended, and a bag of chips containing methamphetamine was found (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of trafficking a controlled substance (possession with intent to distribute) (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, claiming the jury's verdict was based on impermissible inferences regarding possession and knowledge (para 2).
- Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for trafficking a controlled substance?
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was affirmed (para 6).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Hanisee and Henderson JJ. concurring): The Court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction. The observations and testimony of the detention officers provided a rational and logical basis for the jury's findings regarding possession and knowledge of methamphetamine. The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence can constitute substantial evidence and that the jury's determinations of credibility and weight of testimony are not to be re-evaluated by the appellate court (paras 3-5).